The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine, and by misapprehending the legal doctrine, concluded the instant contract with the Defendant’s oral statement.

It is difficult to see that E, etc. is reliable.

In the process of concluding the contract in this case, the defendant clearly notifies E that the financial rights and obligations of the B exceed 8.8 billion won in total, and that the amount of the debt is equal to that of the bill, and this is reflected in the contract in this case. In light of the fact that in the contract in this case, the defendant agreed to jointly manage 15% of the shares in B, etc., the defendant could not discover the motive of deception. Thus, the defendant committed deception.

Now, there was no intention of deception.

As there is an agreement on the Defendant’s liability for the excessive obligation under the instant contract, and there is sufficient means to repay the Defendant’s excessive obligation, the Defendant deceptioned E.

No assessment may be conducted.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is erroneous in the misunderstanding of facts and legal principles as to deception.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s unfair sentencing (two years of imprisonment, three years of suspended sentence, and ninety hours of community service order) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The lower court also asserted that the Defendant had the same purport as the allegation in this part of the grounds for appeal, and the lower court recognized the instant facts charged and rejected the Defendant’s assertion in full view of the circumstances indicated in the item “as to the determination of the Defendant and the defense counsel’s assertion.”

In addition to the following circumstances and judgments admitted by the court below based on the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below, the above judgment of the court below is just and acceptable, and there is an error of misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles as alleged by the defendant.

subsection (b) of this section.

1) approximately KRW 7.8 billion of the amount of debt stated in the agreement of the instant consultations.